Unions versus business

There is a disparity regarding the correct meaning of the term labour broker. While unions believe that labour brokers are merely there for financial gain, they refuse to acknowledge the bigger picture: job creation, decreased unemployment, sustainability and the opportunity of up-skilling. This is an extremely short-sighted view as all that will be achieved is the converse.

It is common knowledge that if the unions ban labour brokers, they will have to do the same to the recruitment industry, as well as every other sector that uses the services of an outsourced company (this includes, but is not limited to, the IT industry, accounting, consultants and sub-contractors). Having this in mind, we need to note that the South African Constitution forbids the banning of these industries.

Lieberthal said: "While it is vital that unions do not win the war against banning labour brokers, they need to take cognisance of the fact that labour brokers provide employment - regardless of the time frame."

A one-stop shop for the employer and the job seeker

The role of the labour broker includes affording job seekers the opportunity to submit their CVs, enquire about a post, or have their CV written in the correct format - regardless of industry sector. In other words, the labour broker is a one-stop shop for both the employer and the job seeker. Moreover, the job seeker is not denied the opportunity of finding work, as is the case whereby most companies have signs at their entrances stating that there are no jobs, therefore depriving the job seeker of submitting his CV or enquiring about present or future employment.

In addition, labour brokers offer the flexibility that is preferred by most organisations. Apart from having the ability to place one or more staff members on a site within a number of hours, employers would, especially small businesses, prefer to hire a person through a labour broker due to their lack of HR and administration resources and infrastructure. Another vital aspect is that pensioners who still wish to or need to work are no longer deprived of an income as they are not governed by the rules and regulations that are dictated by large organisations.

Eskom bonuses

Lieberthal continued: "We do not dispute the fact that there are labour brokers that do not conform to the rules and regulations as set out by the Department of Labour, or those that abuse their power and treat their staff unlawfully. However, this happens in every industry sector. For example, the directors at Eskom revealed that R18.5 million in bonuses was paid to the executive committee members, with the head of Human Resources pocketing R3 million (a 507 percent increase) more in 2011. In addition, the CEO earned R5.7 million (a 0.9 percent increase) and the financial director received R4.9 million (an increase of 346 percent). This is despite the fact that 20 percent of the workforce was retrenched in 2010; the exorbitant loss in earnings for South Africans - both personally and in business due to load shedding; as well as the ludicrous increases in the cost of electricity year on year. Uranium One suffered a 96 percent decline in its headline earnings, but its CEO received R30.9 million in 2010. And the unions have the audacity to criticise a few unethical labour brokers."

Lieberthal argues that unions depend on collective bargaining to be effective. This collective bargaining gives the union the power to persuade the employer to do as the union wishes. This power therefore escalates as the union membership grows. The more the power of the union the more control they have on the political arena of the country.

Unions have political motives

Labour brokerage thus limits this power due to the fact that their employees are not unionised. It is clear that unions want to use their supremacy to perpetuate their ulterior political motives rather than acting as a mediator between the employer and the employee. Unions are, in actual fact, not supposed to be the adversary to the employer; however they should maintain labour peace in the workplace.

Unions know these facts; however they want to ban labour broking without considering the constitutional rights of labour brokers to co-exist with other businesses. While our neighbour, Namibia, banned labour brokers completely, this doesn't mean that South Africans should blindly follow suit without considering economical, political and constitutional make-up of the two countries. More importantly, Namibia does not have the population or the unemployment rate that South Africa has.

"Unions are unreasonable in their approach to labour brokering and they should not mislead people by giving them selective information. This is irresponsible on the side of the union who by so doing don't abide by the 'Batho Pele' principle of transparency" concluded Lieberthal.

Trying to ban an industry that assists with job creation and betterment makes no business or logical sense. If any other union threatens strike action - whether it be legal or illegal, they need to start with the inequalities within the parastatal's, the government and multi-billion-rand organisations.